2005 Fall / Holiday Movie Reviews

Serenity — This is the big-screen treatment of Joss Whedon's second sci-fi franchise, Firefly. For those of you who may not know, Whedon is the creator of the Buffy the Vampire Slayer television series. I envy Whedon his gift for creating full-blooded characters, telling compelling stories in a suspenseful, straightforward way, and for having the gift of Bogie-like dialogue. The whole Firefly-Serenity universe is populated by recognizable, believable folks. It's easy to like these characters, to become invested in their well-being, and to care when they suffer the sorts of vicissitudes we all know. What we like in the crew of Serenity is their capacity to laugh at themselves and their circumstances, and their unfailing ability to surprise us by doing the perfect thing, the thing we would never have the wit or the cajones to do. This is a well-done transition to the larger, cinematic format, something many TV works haven't the heft to manage. Serenity works as a stand-alone piece of sci-fi, but there is much more to appreciate in the movie, quite naturally, if you have followed the Firefly series. The fact that it works is entirely due to the strength of the story telling and the well-crafted characters. Kudos also to the cast for the fine ensemble acting. This is not a special-effects blockbuster. What a nice change of pace. It's out on DVD, and the series is as well, so do check it out.

Lord of War — This is a difficult but important film, one which describes an ugly yet pivotal part of the world we live in today. I highly recommend that you see this movie, no matter its technical or storytelling flaws, because it will allow you to understand better something about the way our world works. Knowledge is power. It is hard to watch because it deals so forthrightly with the human capacity for the brutal and the venal and the avaricious. This is definitely not a movie for children, not even teenagers. There is not much in this story about personal transformation, and so it does not inspire us in the way classical drama is supposed to do. But it tells a great truth about the human condition in the modern world, and so we are warned about that against which all decent people must contend. Nicholas Cage gives a virtuoso performance, and I am becoming more and more fond of Jared Leto as an actor. I'm sure it will appear on DVD soon, and I think it's well worth an evening of your life.

Walk the Line — I walked out of this movie thinking that the acting is superb, and the music is great, but it's too long for the story it tells, and it doesn't break any new ground in the biopic department. But as I thought more about it, I realized that was not quite right. This film is a paean to the redeeming power of the love of a good woman for a good but flawed man. How long has it been since that was the unqualified, unapologetic message of a major movie? The stereotypical story of the musician who crashes and burns is undone here by the simple expedient of the tough love coming from family. Quite a departure for dear old Hollyweird. Then I realized that what bothered me about this story of popular music in the late '50s and early '60 was the narrow focus on the love story between John and June Carter Cash. Giants of that time such as Elvis, Roy Orbison, Carl Perkins, even Sam Phillips, the Sun Records founder, are rendered entirely as one-dimensional cyphers; Jerry Lee Lewis and Waylon Jennings are mere cameos. We get almost no sense of the times, despite all the conspicuous name-dropping that goes on. Nevertheless, the music is captured. The acting of Reese Witherspoon (June Carter Cash) and Joaquin Phoenix (Johnny Cash) is most worthy of the Oscar nominations they've been awarded. It is more than a little mind-boggling when you realize that the two principals, at least, had to learn everything they know about music, singing and playing, to do these roles. In fact, the director, James Mangold, has said that all of the actors were playing the instruments of their characters for this film. Quite a technical achievement. If you like at all the music of Johnny Cash, the Carter family, or the artists of Sun Records, you will enjoy this movie.

Aeon Flux — I am not a follower of the animated series upon which this film is based. While I had seen the Firefly series in re-runs, I walked into Aeon Flux as the proverbial blank slate. Nevertheless, I enjoyed the film on its own merits. Charlize Theron has the skill to make Aeon more than a mere cartoon character brought to life. The visual elements and particularly the architecture of the citadel of Bregna are striking, and the special effects are more engaging than the usual sci-fi chases-&-explosions fare. Particularly noteworthy is the way information technology is imagined as entirely the function of fluids and crystals. I liked the way the entire cast treated the technology as a given, something with which they were thoughtlessly comfortable. Too often in science fiction movies the technology is the star, used to disguise the lack of a worthy story. In Aeon Flux this is decidedly not the case. There is with this movie a serious portrayal of the pitfalls of runaway technology, particularly the problems associated with the cloning process. The resolution is a courageous affirmation of that which makes us human. I liked the work of the supporting cast in general, although there were times when I got the feeling that I was missing something that would've made more sense if I'd followed the television series. That small caveat aside, I think you will enjoy Aeon Flux, if you can make time for it in between the "big" releases (King Kong, Chronicles of Narnia, & the latest Harry Potter).

Note on the Harry Potter series: I am not a Potter fan, didn't read the books, saw the first movie but was indifferent to it, haven't seen the rest. However, everyone of my friends who has seen Goblet of Fire has enthusiastically endorsed it as the best of the series yet. So, FYI.

King Kong — I was interested in seeing this movie only because it was Peter Jackson's follow-up to the Lord of the Rings trilogy, and because Naomi Watts would be recreating Ann Darrow, the role that made Fay Wray an immortal. I got a lot more than I expected. This is a long movie at three hours, and I thought there were a couple of places where the exposition could've been compressed, but in the end I was more than satisfied by the whole. Likewise, I can well imagine that in twenty years people may look back on this iteration of the classic and regard its pathos as melodramatic and campy, like that of its 1933 predecessor. However, no one who appreciates the technical achievements of modern special effects in motion pictures can fail to appreciate this version of King Kong. And Peter Jackson really knows how to tell a good story within his chosen medium, thus his mastery of special effects never completely subsumes the human narrative. This movie is much, much more than a mere homage.

While the fantasy elements of big apes and dinosaurs battling each other on Skull Island are rendered here as big and muscular, I found the scenes in New York to be equally impressive and affecting, both at the beginning where the despair permeating America in the 1930s is well-captured, and at the end where the shots from the biplanes actually induced an attack of vertigo for me. Visually this is one beautiful movie. Starting with the close-ups of Naomi Watts' face, and with each Art Deco nuance, all the way to the last light fading from Kong's eyes, this film is an aesthetic feast.

Beyond the special effects and cinematography there is also a well-acted, poignant story. Watts' acting is everything I expected it to be, she is vulnerable yet strong, and she conveys her dawning awareness of how wrong the treatment of Kong is almost completely without dialogue. There is no justice in this world, I'm sure, because Andy Sirkis, who acted Kong for the computer animators and who actually went to Rawanda to study mountain gorillas in preparation for this role, has not been nominated for an Oscar. That's a shame because he should be. As you probably already know, Sirkis worked for Jackson previously, portraying Gollum in the LOTR cycle. Here, in Kong's eyes, we see the mute intelligence that anyone who has ever had a relationship with an animal knows is there. Seeing that spirit, we know that Kong is not the beast.

Speaking of beasts, I must admit that in this movie Jack Black gives a contained and believable performance, so much so that I no longer think the appellation of "actor" is misapplied to him. Carl Denham is the role Black was born to play. He is desperate and determined and utterly obtuse. Colin Hanks, son of Tom and an actor I like, does a credible job in the small role of Denham's assistant. But Adrian Brody's turn as Jack Driscoll, the playwright whose reputation lures Ann into Denham's misbegotten scheme, came across to me as surprisingly hollow. I won't go so far as to say that he phoned in his performance, but I just didn't believe the relationship between Ann and Jack. I didn't detect any chemistry between Brody and Watts. Maybe their relationship suffered by the close comparison to the relationship between Ann and Kong, but I ended up feeling that Jack was just a contrivance to keep Ann a pure heroine, free from sniggering comments about beastiality. The roles might've been better cast if Hanks had been the romantic interest and Brody had been the nerdy assistant. But that is a small and unimportant caveat to what is otherwise a nearly flawless film. (Note: Shortly after I saw the new, Jackson King Kong, I had occasion to see the original again for the first time in years. The spurious Brody performance may be explained by the one notable departure Jackson makes from the original screenplay: In the '33 version, Jack Driscoll is first mate on the tramp steamer which conveys the movie crew to Skull Island. It makes a lot more sense for a rugged seaman to be the rescuer of Ann than for an effete New Yorker to suddenly transmute himself into a Hemingway-esque hero.)

Finally, King Kong survives as a classic of 1930s filmmaking, instead of an oddity from the period, because it addresses the same themes of beauty and beastliness in us all that are addressed in the eponymous Cocteau film. King Kong is the American treatment of the European Beauty and the Beast, complete with dinosaur wrestling. Peter Jackson's update is a wonderful blend of both. There is much symbolism layered into this film that will have to be addressed at some later date because the rocket ride that is this movie is too fresh and too much for such analysis on first viewing. It is there, however, and we should all be glad for the advent of home theater, so that we can savor this King Kong again and again.

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe — As much as I loved the visual art and cinematography of King Kong, I loved the visuals of Narnia that much more. During the whole movie my friend and I just kept whispering to each other, "Wow!" as one beautiful scene after another passed before our eyes. The interplay between live action and animation gives new definition to the term "seamless." I'm not sure where Narnia was filmed, but I want to vacation there it is such stunningly gorgeous landscape. However, having given proper plaudits to the artists who did the graphic parts of the movie, I must say I found the story and the acting rather pedestrian, and thus the movie as a whole seemed a bit hollow. The lone exception is Tilda Swinton, who positively burns up the screen as the evil White Witch. The children are remarkably unengaging, not obnoxious just not able to evoke the emotional involvement that I want in a good fantasy. Narnia is a good movie for kids, in the way that Bambi was, but grown-ups should definitely accompany younger children. One thing that really bothered me, though, was that the (animated, bad) wolves are so well done that some kids may be frightened of dogs such a shepherds after seeing the film. This movie is good enough that I will probably see the sequels, but I was a little disappointed overall.

Notable movies I didn't see: The Constant Gardener — I like Rachel Weisz, but her role was a supporting one, & the story, as depicted in the publicity, seemed hackneyed & unappealing. Pride & Prejudice — This Keira Knightly vehicle looked good, but it came out at a bad time for me, thus it just slipped through the cracks. I hope to see it soon because she did garner a Best Actress nomination. I did not see most of the Oscar nominated pictures of this year because most of them held no appeal for me at all, so if I didn't review it, I didn't see it. Caveat emptor.